Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[stevep]

Mike

Try and get some grip on reality.

That is bull. Canada under British rule was a backwater undemocractic place valorising the Anglo-Saxon race and persecuting francophones and Amerindiens. It was only in the 20th century and closer ties with the USA with its hegemonic economic power that Canada really took off. Canada also benefits from a low population inhabiting a vast land of natural resources. Expect the HDI for Canada to go down in the decades ahead as the population of Canada increases. In fact, it already has.

It was a damned sight more democratic than most places in the world at the time and the fracophones would have and Amerindiens definitely did suffered a hell of a lot worse in the US than in Canada. That is well recorded fact.

The biggest single problem Canada had developing was the existance of a wealthy US to the south that drained off settlers to it because of the greater opportunities in the south. That will be significantly greater in TTL, especially if there is no significant hostility towards Catholics.

What an hypcrtical statement. The British Empire certainly did not spread liberty. It subjugated people towards a distant tyrant living in Buckingham Palace.

If you actually read my post you would see I never said anything like that. I will admit Britain road roughshod over many local cultures, including in sophisticated ancient regions such as India. Slavery, human sacrifice and religious persecution for instance. It also triggered the mutiny in large part by greatly reducing the number and status of the military because it had brought peace to the sub-continent. There were excesses but I believe the empire overall brought more peace and stability than existed before in most cases.

What I actually said was that the people of Europe decided they wouldn't be ruled by a foreign despot. That Britain played a big part in helping in this but it would be impossible to have achieved it without that desire. That was quite simple. I even highlighted the key points but people tend to see what they want to.

Europe would certainly have been better off if Napoleon I did achieve in his dream for a united confederal European state instead of squabbling states. Europe would definitely have been spared all the devastating wars that came after the French Revolution and Napoleonic period. After WW2, Europe had been weakened too much and finally came together in the federal union now called the European Union. For the good.

You mean his dream of an imperial empire with a widespread secret police and oppression of any contrary viewpoint. Crowns for his family and supporters and a large French army living off the lands of any people he was unhappy with.

Even if the nightmare had succeeded in being established I think popular opposition would have taken it down sooner or later but the cost would have been huge. You only have to look at when similar states were established by systems like the Bolsheviks and fascists later on or some of the other monolithic states established in world history.

Not so civil, are we.

What francophone warring are you referring to? Napoleon? He only reacted to others warring against him.

You mean when someone treats you with the contempt you show others, even when your actions suggest you've earned it.

Again your getting your facts wrong, wrong, wrong. He was brought down principally by two wars of aggression, against Spain and Russia, which were technically allies prior to him attacking them. I would also be interested to know when the Ottoman empire attacked him prior to 1798 as well. Napoleon's greatest mistake, like a number of other military geniuses, was to assume that he could solve all his problems by using that genius to force people to do what he wanted. Even in his dying days he never seemed to realise that was the source of most of his problems. Because he was a supreme megalomaniac he totally failed to consider other people and their views matter.

Steve

 

[Falastur]

What an hypcrtical statement. The British Empire certainly did not spread liberty. It subjugated people towards a distant tyrant living in Buckingham Palace.

Uhh...what? I'm sorry, Mike, but that's horrifically wide of the mark. The Kings of the UK were not "tyrants living in Buckingham Palace". OK, they lived in BP, but they lost their chance to be tyrants in 1649 when Charlie I got his head trimmed from his body for coming too close to that mark. They occasionally caused the fall of one PM or a certain policy but they lost their power to be tyrannical ages ago. Could they declare war? No, Parliament stole that right. Could they control the armies? No, Parliament stole that right. Could they appoint governors to territories? Yes, by suggesting them to the PMs, but they had no say in the government of the colonies except as a lobbyist talking to the PM and Cabinet and asking them to change policy - which Parliament rarely acquiesced to. Parliament controlled diplomacy, Parliament decided how the natives would be dealt with, Parliament was in control of dispossessing native rulers...in fact, most of that was the East India Company's fault/job (delete as applicable). As the years went by, the British monarchs exerted less and less influence on anything, especially that which occurred outside of England, and indeed when monarchs did get involved, especially around the era TTL is set, tended to be far more sympathetic to their colonial subjects than Parliament. Take for example Edward VII's (as Prince of Wales) state visit to India in ~1867 where he instructed his entourage to treat all natives as equal to the British, to the mortification of his closest companions and despite there being absolutely no precedent for doing such, and likely history would not have noticed if he had simply acted the same as all other Europeans and treated the Indians as second class citizens. He followed up his visit by commending the Indians for their spirit and their virtue, and recommended Parliament grant them better government, Parliament responded by creating the Indian Empire and pretty much ignoring Indian government reform for another 50 years. Take the ARW...George III was actually in favour of bending over backwards to accommodate the "pesky colonists" that Parliament was largely against supporting, up until the point where they went into full scale rebellion against him.

Though I find the idea of Empire far more interesting than other forms of government, I will never argue in favour of the actions of Empires when they creating problems for their subjects and for taking a very long time to bring proper equality and representation for the native subjects, but please...never, ever blame Parliaments idiocy and backwardness on the monarchy.

 

[Falastur]

Not so civil, are we.

What francophone warring are you referring to? Napoleon? He only reacted to others warring against him.

I'm not quite sure where to start with this. Napoleon wanted to be peaceable? He said himself that his sole intention was to use war as a tool of political domination and state expansion. He is even on record as having said that if he were German he believed it his destiny to have militarily united the Holy Roman Empire into a single cohesive state as he tried to conquer Europe with France. His early campaigns after he rose to power from the Siege of Toulon 1796 were his idea - the simple fact is that Revolutionary France looted its way through its campaigns in the early period and that played a large portion of the way he strategised. First he looted much of Northern Italy, becoming personally rich as he did so as did other French generals, then he received permission for his 1798 Egypt campaign, which had the stated intention of carving a path to India where France could pluck the extremely rich India gem in the crown of the British Empire. He raided Italy several more times before it was exhausted, invaded his own Spanish ally because he didn't believe that as an independent state the Spanish would be efficient enough at carrying out his military aims, he invaded Portugal and Denmark, both neutral (in fact, Denmark was pro-French) to steal their fleets, he invaded Switzerland of all places very early on with no provocation at all...as if Switzerland was going to join a Coalition?!...and carved it into four Revolutionary Republic states. I'm pretty sure he turned on his German allies on several occasions because it suited his strategy better than letting them run themselves. Sure, in the latter half of his zenith, wars kept starting when Coalitions formed against him but by this point France controlled half of Europe already, and let's face it...how many of his wars were actually fought in France? He wasn't exactly a very defensive general. Would a ruler who favoured peace over war keep pressing his enemies to the point where they were so humiliated that national honour obliged them to keep declaring war and losing?

 

[DuQuense]

Expect the HDI for Canada to go down in the decades ahead as the population of Canada increases. In fact, it already has.

Except the Demographic of Canada indicate a falling population in the next couple of Decades, with immigration not keeping pace with falling birthrates.

 

[Eurofed]

You mean his dream of an imperial empire with a widespread secret police and oppression of any contrary viewpoint. Crowns for his family and supporters and a large French army living off the lands of any people he was unhappy with.

I won't deny the problems that were in the OTL Napoleonic Europe, such as the exploitative attitude of the French hegemon and the nepotistic patchwork he made of the map, which frustrated and alienated European liberal nationalists that could have otherwise been the best allies of Napoleon and made him invincible. And he was a fool to let Austria and Prussia survive and go on a wild goose chase in the Russian steppes. These flaws need to be ironed out in order to make Napoleon successful.

But his system was a huge social, political, and cultural improvement for Europe and spread the seed of liberal and national rebirth across the continent. Sure, he was a charismatic autocrat driving secret police on radical dissent, but the empire was quite progressive and meritocratic for its age, and moderate dissent was at worst left alone and marginalized, not persecuted. Napoleon stated that he meant the empire to go more liberal in his late age when the wars in Europe were done, and he put substance to his talk with the 1815 constitution. It is easy to imagine that with a victorious and more liberal Napoleonic empire, redesigned in a confederal way to the yearnings of Germans and Italians for national unity of their polities, the European peoples, while natonalism was still its formative stages, would have eagerly latched to the ideal of a liberal imperial confederation of united Europe.

In the meanwhile, let's take a look to Britain during the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars. The Tory landed elites went into a full reactionary panic, using their control of parliament through a very narrow franchise and undemocratic "rotten boroughs" to unleash a wave of repressive laws, that bent British consititutional liberties to a farce for anyone not a reactionary Tory gentry, on the radical liberalism of the middle classes and crushed the social agitation of the lower classes by brutal repression (ever heard of the Massacre of Peterloo ? the Six Acts ?), matching the truckload of legal discrimination that the Catholics already suffered. Not to mention defending their protectionist privilege to the point of famine with the Corn Laws.

If the British political system could later recover from the reactionary and exploitative oligarchy with a parliamentary facade of the Napoleonic system, why we should assume that a Napoleonic united confederal Europe would not likewise evolve towards a liberal constitutional monarchy which its citizens would freely give their patriotic allegiance to, and in addition get spared all the devastating wars, revolutions, and nationalistic mess of the 19th and 20th century, not to mention Nazism and Communism (perhaps in Russia, certainly in the rest of Europe) ?

Let's face it, Britain fought the Napoleonic wars for the selfish reason of preventing the rise of a united Europe that would have outcompeted it in the economic and colonial fields and put an end to its naval hegemony. All its victory wrought for Europe, aside from ensuring the above mess would come to pass, was to substitute the progressive enlightened despotism of Napoleon with the reactionary nightmare of the Holy Alliance, which the European peoples had to fight against for two generations and with many wars and revolutions to shake off. That much about fighting for "liberty". British victory created the nightmare of oppression in Metternich's system, not prevented it. Britain fought the Napoleonic Wars for nobody's liberty but the one of its landed gentry elite to stay on top of the world and exploit it. Napoleonic Europe had no intention of invading Britain whatsoever if Britain had left it alone instead of endlessly fostering trouble across the continent against it.

Even if the nightmare had succeeded in being established I think popular opposition would have taken it down sooner or later but the cost would have been huge. You only have to look at when similar states were established by systems like the Bolsheviks and fascists later on or some of the other monolithic states established in world history.

Sure, because history proves that a state of continental size must always be authoritarian and opprrssive to stand. Oh, look, the USA got communist, and India fascist.

 

[Falastur]

But his system was a huge social, political, and cultural improvement for Europe and spread the seed of liberal and national rebirth across the continent.

Socially and politically, yes. It would be hard to argue with you there, even though I personally dislike democracy and favour monarchy (but only when done right). But I'm not sure culturally you are correct. However, it really is a non-issue in my mind so I see little point in either elaborating or holding this against your argument. A simple contradiction of opinions.

Napoleon stated that he meant the empire to go more liberal in his late age when the wars in Europe were done, and he put substance to his talk with the 1815 constitution. It is easy to imagine that with a victorious and more liberal Napoleonic empire, redesigned in a confederal way to the yearnings of Germans and Italians for national unity of their polities, the European peoples, while natonalism was still its formative stages, would have eagerly latched to the ideal of a liberal imperial confederation of united Europe.

Yes, very true, but then in his "late age" Napoleon was also struggling under the economic collapse of France as the country's economic balance finally caught up with him and the simple fact that France could not support 20 years of fielding millions of soldiers constantly. His 'approval ratings' so to speak were plummeting, a lot of aggrieved crippled soldiers were returning, rather like after the World Wars, to find themselves unable to work and unsupported by the state, and essentially all the gloss and shine of a successful French conquering crusader was wearing off and being exposed for what it was. I honestly believe Napoleon did intent to do what was best for his subjects, I have a lot of time for him despite being a fierce opponent of what he did to Europe, but he was a Machiavellian character and recognised the use of, and need for, the use of threats, heavy-handedness and power to keep the people in line. This is something that the UK was not nearly so capable of doing - the very turbulent nature of England at the time meant that a party under popular pressure for unpopular ministries would fall at the next election, and simply there were far too many "toffs", so to speak, who would faint at the thought of secret police and "uncivilised practices" for such to be got away with. Going back to my previous point, as a Machiavellian Prince he was also quite aware of the need for making promises he could barely keep in order to maintain support. The simple fact is that Europe never managed peace in his era for long enough for us to test him at his word, but I find it hard to believe that he would give up many of his greater claims - I believe that he would always feel the need for maintaining some sort of secret police style system to ensure that his rule was not usurped by the very demographic which had hoisted him to power, for instance, and let's not forget that he elected himself Emperor and liquidated his psuedo-democratic institutions when they clashed with him. His was an era of personal freedoms, but not I think full civil, nor any real political freedoms, which (linking back to the very start of this debate) was what was claimed as Napoleon's legacy to Europe.

In the meanwhile, let's take a look to Britain during the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars. The Tory landed elites went into a full reactionary panic, using their control of parliament through a very narrow franchise and undemocratic "rotten boroughs" to unleash a wave of repressive laws, that bent British consititutional liberties to a farce for anyone not a reactionary Tory gentry, on the radical liberalism of the middle classes and crushed the social agitation of the lower classes by brutal repression (ever heard of the Massacre of Peterloo ? the Six Acts ?), matching the truckload of legal discrimination that the Catholics already suffered. Not to mention defending their protectionist privilege to the point of famine with the Corn Laws.

Sadly, I cannot fault these examples. Personally, however, I believe it is a naive person who believes that the system, period, country or person he most admires is without fault, and who will not admit that many actions taken by the object of our support cannot be defended. Yes, Britain was an unsavoury place. However, one swallow does not a summer make, and similarly a troubled government body does not indicate that Britain was significantly behind the times in terms of liberty and freedom. Unlike virtually the rest of the continent, Britain was continually (though gradually) lowering its enfranchisement conditions, and I need only mention the 1832 Reform Acts and the Catholic Emancipation to highlight that Britain knew its system was at fault and not only needed fixing but had the conviction to do so. Britain was at the forefront of ending slavery, and had lobbies for most any personal freedom you could attribute to Napoleon or Revolutionary France, even if some were somewhat weak. There are other examples I could use but am too tired to think of. To summarise, my point is just because Parliament had its problems, doesn't mean that the UK reveled in how backwards it was, nor did it cease to address many of these things, which is more than can be said for many institutions.

If the British political system could later recover from the reactionary and exploitative oligarchy with a parliamentary facade of the Napoleonic system, why we should assume that a Napoleonic united confederal Europe would not likewise evolve towards a liberal constitutional monarchy which its citizens would freely give their patriotic allegiance to, and in addition get spared all the devastating wars, revolutions, and nationalistic mess of the 19th and 20th century, not to mention Nazism and Communism (perhaps in Russia, certainly in the rest of Europe) ?

Again, a reasonable question, but my answer would have to be "because Napoleon early in his rule dispensed with the idea of ruling in conjunction with an elected body, and while he expressed a desire to treat his citizens right, he never again showed an interest in supporting democratic institutions. To my mind, through rose-tinted specs the best Napoleon would produce would be a kind of enlightened military despotism with a free citizen base in the lower classes, to contrast with the largely downtrodden poor in the time of Louis XIV. Either way, Napoleon believed himself a better judge of the people's needs than the people themselves, and would not favour a constitutional monarchy. He did speak in support of a constitution, but only a constitution which, in his own words "does not impede the government", that is, a constitution to prevent the government from excess, but not from being ruthless at its job.

I recall a quotation by Napoleon that I read in an appendix for a lengthy review of the Congress of Vienna and the Hundred Days, a quote from Napoleon's time on St Helena, where (I looked it up, this is exact) he is recorded as saying:

"The first duty of a prince, without doubt, is to do what the people wants; but what the people wants is almost never what it says: its will, its needs are to be found less in its mouth than in the heart of the prince"

That is to say, Napoleon fervently believed that to do what was best for the people did not involve consulting the people, but rather from doing what, as Emperor, he viewed as the correct course of action.

 

[Mike]

It was a damned sight more democratic than most places in the world at the time

Not according to Papineau, the leader of the Rebellion of 1837.

and the fracophones would have and Amerindiens definitely did suffered a hell of a lot worse in the US than in Canada. That is well recorded fact.

No it is not. Provide a link.

The biggest single problem Canada had developing was the existance of a wealthy US to the south that drained off settlers to it because of the greater opportunities in the south. That will be significantly greater in TTL, especially if there is no significant hostility towards Catholics.

That could be one of the factors. However, it is not the only factor.

If you actually read my post you would see I never said anything like that.

Yes you did. You said this: "we maintained our liberty by our own efforts and inspired others to do likewise by our example"

There were excesses but I believe the empire overall brought more peace and stability than existed before in most cases.

Sure. It was great for the Anglo-Saxon people but not so great for the indigeneous people, especially in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in which the native populations have been either wiped out or completely subsumed by British stock.

What I actually said was that the people of Europe decided they wouldn't be ruled by a foreign despot.

You have not demonstrated why you consider Napoleon as a foreign despot.

You mean his dream of an imperial empire with a widespread secret police and oppression of any contrary viewpoint. Crowns for his family and supporters

Nepotism was widespread at the time and continues to exist today. It is human nature that is unfortunately hard to stamp out. That said, Napoleonic France was certainly far less inclined to practice nepotism than his contemporaries elaswhere in Europe including Britain which was a rigidly class-stratified society.

and a large French army living off the lands of any people he was unhappy with.

In wartime, yes, the French army lived off the land but they had to in order to feed and defend themselves. In peacetime, they left. What do you expect the French army to do? - starve to death?

Again your getting your facts wrong, wrong, wrong. He was brought down principally by two wars of aggression, against Spain and Russia, which were technically allies prior to him attacking them.

He was brought down by the coalitions that were formed against him without provocation. I admit that the invasion of Spain was unprovoked but his invasion of Russia was not unprovoked - it was a premediated strike against Alexander who has always been anti-Napoleon and anti-French, who was amassing his army to attack France. Alexander once said that there is no room for both France and Russia in Europe.

I would also be interested to know when the Ottoman empire attacked him prior to 1798 as well. Napoleon's greatest mistake, like a number of other military geniuses, was to assume that he could solve all his problems by using that genius to force people to do what he wanted. Even in his dying days he never seemed to realise that was the source of most of his problems. Because he was a supreme megalomaniac he totally failed to consider other people and their views matter.

Your're rambling.

 

[Glen]

After a few near things, it became abundantly apparent to the United States of America that the Electoral System used to select the President of the United States had one serious problem; the potential to elect as President a party's choice for Vice-President. The passage of an amendment changing the balloting of the Electoral College to the Condorcet Method utilizing ranked ballots, which had been recommended by the senator from Quebec who was a great admirer of Nicholas de Condorcet and his voting method. By the simple expedient of ranking the Presidential choice higher than the Vice-Presidential choice, a great deal of risk had been eliminated. The process was also more likely to deliver a majority winner without throwing the election to Congress. The tabulation methods required for the Condorcet method meant it was not immediately adopted for regular voting, but its use in the Electoral College spurred interest in this and other ranked voting systems in the United States.

One other realm where the Condorcet method of ranked voting found a niche was in the selection of United States senators by state legislatures. Beginning with the State of Quebec but rapidly spreading after its adoption by the Electoral College, the method usually resulted in clear victories without the need for multiple votes. In the rare instances of circular ties, the various states adopted a number of different schemes, but most held the penultimate tiebreaker As the state's governor.

 

[stevep]

Not according to Papineau, the leader of the Rebellion of 1837.

So? You think a leader of a rebellion will say 'we're actually well treated but we want more!' He may even have thought he was badly done by but compared to most people worldwide he was much better off.

No it is not. Provide a link.

Try the CIA factbook. That has a lot of info on populations.

That could be one of the factors. However, it is not the only factor.

That was a major factor. The other one was the colder climate. Could also be argued that until Canada became independent in 1867 it was tried to British free trade policies which made industrial development more difficult.

Yes you did. You said this: "we maintained our liberty by our own efforts and inspired others to do likewise by our example"

Exactly. What problem are you having with the English language? I gave a quote about Britain maintaining its independence in a period of great threat and you started making claims about the British empire.

Sure. It was great for the Anglo-Saxon people but not so great for the indigeneous people, especially in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in which the native populations have been either wiped out or completely subsumed by British stock.

It was pretty good for all the 'white' settlers. Treatment of other peoples varied but was frequently better than in other colonial areas or what had occurred before the British came to power. On the examples you mention:
a) Australia - is one of the darker elements in history, although often much of this was by local setters despite attempts to moderate their treatment by the imperial authorities.
b) Canada, as you will see from the factbook if you bother to look, has a substantial indigenous population. If you know anything of history you will also know there were cases of Indians fleeing persecution from the US who went, or tried to, to Canada.
c) I would love to see you go to New Zealand and tell that to a Maori.
d) So you think the US is part of the British empire??

You have not demonstrated why you consider Napoleon as a foreign despot.

Let's see. For the vast majority of Europe he was a foreigner. Also he was a despot. Simple when you think about it.

Nepotism was widespread at the time and continues to exist today. It is human nature that is unfortunately hard to stamp out. That said, Napoleonic France was certainly far less inclined to practice nepotism than his contemporaries elaswhere in Europe including Britain which was a rigidly class-stratified society.

Actually while class stratified and it reacted badly to the threat posed by the revolution it was far from rigid. People could work their way up the social ladder. Republican France, while significantly more dangerous to operate in, was more mobile, especially of cause for warriors, but most of Europe was a lot more rigid.

More to the point, while nepotism is all too common and has a practical basis the more important point is the despotism of his system, especially as he got more paranoid and vindictive.

In wartime, yes, the French army lived off the land but they had to in order to feed and defend themselves. In peacetime, they left. What do you expect the French army to do? - starve to death?

Wrong on both accounts. One of the advantages they had over other armies was that they looted from the locals. This was strictly forbidden by the regular armies of the other nations, which used elaborate systems of depots and supply wagons. Hence they moved somewhat slower than the French.

In wartime they looted from the enemy. In peacetime they were based in occupied or 'allied' territories, that had to support them. This was deliberately to avoid the French themselves having to support the army. When they were forced back onto French territory from ~1813 onwards the continued looting of the French forces made it highly unpopular.

He was brought down by the coalitions that were formed against him without provocation. I admit that the invasion of Spain was unprovoked but his invasion of Russia was not unprovoked - it was a premediated strike against Alexander who has always been anti-Napoleon and anti-French, who was amassing his army to attack France. Alexander once said that there is no room for both France and Russia in Europe.

Bullshit! The only provocation Russia gave was that it made clear it was unwilling to continue to be a French puppet and obey the French embargo, which was deeply damaging to Russia, along with the rest of Europe, but Russia was the only state that still had the independent to seek to assert its independence. Falastur has also answered this pretty comprehensively.

Your're rambling.

You mean I've brought up facts you don't like.

Steve

 

[stevep]

I won't deny the problems that were in the OTL Napoleonic Europe, such as the exploitative attitude of the French hegemon and the nepotistic patchwork he made of the map, which frustrated and alienated European liberal nationalists that could have otherwise been the best allies of Napoleon and made him invincible. And he was a fool to let Austria and Prussia survive and go on a wild goose chase in the Russian steppes. These flaws need to be ironed out in order to make Napoleon successful.

Interesting comment there. Ever wondered why? Because he didn't have the popular support to do it. Despite repeated defeats the Austrians especially maintained much popular support in their core territories. The Prussians reacted to their devastating defeat in 1806-07 by drastically restructuring their society and although the aristocracy eventually reasserted their dominance it generated great power of popular support to help take down their mutual enemy.

With Russia what choice did he have? Russia had defied him and left the continental system. He couldn't risk them deciding their own future without the unrest at his rule bubbling over elsewhere. Nor the economic advantage they gained by not being shackled by his rules. For the sort of unstable person he was he couldn't tolerate anyone challenging his dominance. Also, with the rest of Europe cowered and beaten down, the Russians weren't going to come to him.

But his system was a huge social, political, and cultural improvement for Europe and spread the seed of liberal and national rebirth across the continent. Sure, he was a charismatic autocrat driving secret police on radical dissent, but the empire was quite progressive and meritocratic for its age, and moderate dissent was at worst left alone and marginalized, not persecuted. Napoleon stated that he meant the empire to go more liberal in his late age when the wars in Europe were done, and he put substance to his talk with the 1815 constitution. It is easy to imagine that with a victorious and more liberal Napoleonic empire, redesigned in a confederal way to the yearnings of Germans and Italians for national unity of their polities, the European peoples, while natonalism was still its formative stages, would have eagerly latched to the ideal of a liberal imperial confederation of united Europe.

Moderate dissent was at least left alone but rarely that. As Falastur said his last gasp reversion to more democratic means was a matter of expediency as his empire fell apart. Your last sentence is utterly wrong. By ~1810 at the latest nationalism was rising in part because of the Napoleonic excesses. It was markedly less powerful until he began riding roughshod over all and sundry. He was the last person any reformists would have trusted.

In the meanwhile, let's take a look to Britain during the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars. The Tory landed elites went into a full reactionary panic, using their control of parliament through a very narrow franchise and undemocratic "rotten boroughs" to unleash a wave of repressive laws, that bent British consititutional liberties to a farce for anyone not a reactionary Tory gentry, on the radical liberalism of the middle classes and crushed the social agitation of the lower classes by brutal repression (ever heard of the Massacre of Peterloo ? the Six Acts ?), matching the truckload of legal discrimination that the Catholics already suffered. Not to mention defending their protectionist privilege to the point of famine with the Corn Laws.

Yes this was a bad period for Britain and an opportunity lost. As you point out it was as a result of the excesses of the French revolution and brought to a grinding halt the reform that had been reforming and rolled it back quite a way. Even at its worst the British system proved superior to the French imperial one because opposition was allowed. There were debates on such matters and growing support for reform that began to turn things around again.

If the British political system could later recover from the reactionary and exploitative oligarchy with a parliamentary facade of the Napoleonic system, why we should assume that a Napoleonic united confederal Europe would not likewise evolve towards a liberal constitutional monarchy which its citizens would freely give their patriotic allegiance to, and in addition get spared all the devastating wars, revolutions, and nationalistic mess of the 19th and 20th century, not to mention Nazism and Communism (perhaps in Russia, certainly in the rest of Europe) ?

Because the British system retained a legal place for internal opposition and also needed to stay competitive with numerous other powers. The Napoleonic empire would have had no real external rivals nor place for discontent. It would not allow citizens to freely give their allegiance to whom they chose because it rejected that very idea. As such the people that the populations would have looked to would have been its enemies.

Let's face it, Britain fought the Napoleonic wars for the selfish reason of preventing the rise of a united Europe that would have outcompeted it in the economic and colonial fields and put an end to its naval hegemony. All its victory wrought for Europe, aside from ensuring the above mess would come to pass, was to substitute the progressive enlightened despotism of Napoleon with the reactionary nightmare of the Holy Alliance, which the European peoples had to fight against for two generations and with many wars and revolutions to shake off. That much about fighting for "liberty". British victory created the nightmare of oppression in Metternich's system, not prevented it. Britain fought the Napoleonic Wars for nobody's liberty but the one of its landed gentry elite to stay on top of the world and exploit it. Napoleonic Europe had no intention of invading Britain whatsoever if Britain had left it alone instead of endlessly fostering trouble across the continent against it.

Bullshit! Even you aren't that blind to reality. You can not have a peaceful and stable relationship with a totalitarian state without a very strongly armed neutrality. If Britain had allowed the French empire to conquer the rest of Europe it would have had little chance itself to defend itself when the monolith turned on it.

Napoleon by his nature would never have willing left any power outside his control. Its a fundamental flaw of such weak characters that they will not trust other people to be unlike them.

Sure, because history proves that a state of continental size must always be authoritarian and opprrssive to stand. Oh, look, the USA got communist, and India fascist.

Try looking at the facts rather than jumping to find support for your assumptions. The US was pretty weak in its early years and has thrown its weight about quite a lot as its grown. Whatever flaws its founding fathers had they also built up a highly complex system of checks and balances to protect the republic against the sort of monopolistic figure such as Napoleon, Stalin etc. It causes them problems in terms of often make government slow and cumbersome but so far has largely protected its own population from government excess.

India is a very good case. Using a system based on the British one you despise, although it has some problems and there is a lot of corruption, it has survived quite well. Also it needs popular support, both to overcome its huge social and economic problems and because it faces external threats.

Steve

 

[Mike]

So? You think a leader of a rebellion will say 'we're actually well treated but we want more!' He may even have thought he was badly done by but compared to most people worldwide he was much better off.

Elaborate, please

Try the CIA factbook. That has a lot of info on populations.

Then quote from it to back up your arguments.

That was a major factor. The other one was the colder climate. Could also be argued that until Canada became independent in 1867 it was tried to British free trade policies which made industrial development more difficult.

Whatever. Even your argument implies that Canada was a backwater country under British rule. Just like I said.

Exactly. What problem are you having with the English language? I gave a quote about Britain maintaining its independence in a period of great threat and you started making claims about the British empire.

I understand English. You practice sophism. You said Britain fought for liberty. This means that they value liberty, no? But as I have said, they only value liberty for themselves but not for others. They did not fight for liberty for others or introduce liberty to others. They actively engaged to deny it for others. That makes them hypocrites as I have said.

Is that so hard for you to understand?

It was pretty good for all the 'white' settlers. Treatment of other peoples varied but was frequently better than in other colonial areas or what had occurred before the British came to power. On the examples you mention:
a) Australia - is one of the darker elements in history, although often much of this was by local setters despite attempts to moderate their treatment by the imperial authorities.

b) Canada, as you will see from the factbook if you bother to look, has a substantial indigenous population. If you know anything of history you will also know there were cases of Indians fleeing persecution from the US who went, or tried to, to Canada.

Canada did and does not have a substantial Amerindien population, compared to the USA and other European settlements populations. The Amerindian population in the USA was larger than that in Canada, but both suffered persecution and complete control by the whites along with Australia and New Zealand who also did not have a substantial indigeneous population like Canada.

c) I would love to see you go to New Zealand and tell that to a Maori.

Yeah, let's go ask them. See this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_protest_movement

d) So you think the US is part of the British empire??

Not anymore. No more than Canada and others. The British Empire does not exist anymore. Duh!

Let's see. For the vast majority of Europe he was a foreigner. Also he was a despot. Simple when you think about it.

This is all relative. He was a much better despot than his European contemporaries including Britain. Nepoleon is often frequnetly regarded as an "enlightened despot".

Actually while class stratified and it reacted badly to the threat posed by the revolution it was far from rigid. People could work their way up the social ladder. Republican France, while significantly more dangerous to operate in, was more mobile, especially of cause for warriors, but most of Europe was a lot more rigid.

Bull. Using the armies as an example, the French army was more egalitarian than the British or other European armies. Alessandro Barbero, in his book, the Battle a New History of Waterloo, marvels at how egalitarian the and meritocractic the Napoleonic French army was which upheld ideals of the French Revolution. According to him, about 3/4 of the officers that served Napoleon had come up through the ranks. Not so for the British in that only 5-10% of the officers had come up through the ranks; the rest were from the aristocractic class. The other European armies had better meritocractic rates than the British.

So yes, Napoleonic France practiced less nepotism than the other European nations including Britiain.

More to the point, while nepotism is all too common and has a practical basis the more important point is the despotism of his system, especially as he got more paranoid and vindictive.

His "despotic" system was more enlightened than others. The average French citizen had a better education and, as I demonstrated with the army example, could aspire to go up the ladder. This is not true for the other European nations, including Britain. If Napoleon's system was despotic, the others at the time were MORE despotic.

Wrong on both accounts. One of the advantages they had over other armies was that they looted from the locals. This was strictly forbidden by the regular armies of the other nations, which used elaborate systems of depots and supply wagons. Hence they moved somewhat slower than the French.

So? Your pont? The French had to loot in order to survive. You have ignored this part of my argument and going on tangents.

In wartime they looted from the enemy. In peacetime they were based in occupied or 'allied' territories, that had to support them. This was deliberately to avoid the French themselves having to support the army. When they were forced back onto French territory from ~1813 onwards the continued looting of the French forces made it highly unpopular.

The French had to loot because they took the fight to the their enemies rather than letting them come to France. If the enemy had gone to France, they would certainly have looted it to feed their army just like the French did.

Again, I ask. What do you expect the French to do? -Starve to death?

Bullshit! The only provocation Russia gave was that it made clear it was unwilling to continue to be a French puppet and obey the French embargo, which was deeply damaging to Russia, along with the rest of Europe, but Russia was the only state that still had the independent to seek to assert its independence. Falastur has also answered this pretty comprehensively.

Wrong. As I have said, the Russians had armies forming up and was going to attack France if Napoleon did not decide to attack first, Russia would have done. Alexander said this about Napoleon: "there was no space in Europe for both of us".

You mean I've brought up facts you don't like.

Nope, I meant that you were and are rambling.

 

[Falastur]

Not anymore. No more than Canada and others. The British Empire does not exist anymore. Duh!

Actually, it does. The existence of British Overseas Possessions is the last remnants of the Empire. Considering that an Empire is any state which controls other land beyond its own borders, this means that so long as London controls anything outside of the British Isles, there will be a British Empire.

Incidentally, I've read your post history, Mike, and you frequently ask people why they accuse you of being insulting. Your comment "Duh!" is the perfect example of why you are treated with such hostility. Your posts rarely contain actual insults to other users, but your tone carries the air of someone who believes that anyone who does not share your logic, or needs it explaining to them, is "inferior" and needs to be treated with accompanying disrespect. Perhaps that will help you understand why you are frequently harassed out of threads?

This is all relative. He was a much better despot than his European contemporaries including Britain. Nepoleon is often frequnetly regarded as an "enlightened despot".

"Better" is a subjective term - that means that people with other viewpoints aren't necessarily going to agree with you. Napoleon was a far more enlightened despot, for sure, but that doesn't mean that he should have been supported over other European rulers. The principle that because one advocates a course of justice far better than one's rivals excuses that person of blame for anything else is a very dangerous assumption. For example, bringing "equality to the masses" was used by Communist Russia to excuse the slaughter of millions of dissenters and the rigging of elections and such - since they were bringing "glorious worker's paradise of Communism" to the people, whether they liked it or not, this laurel was used by the Communist leaders to absolve themselves of any blame for any wrong done. What Napoleon did was set a precedent that, if supported or allowed to leave, would codify the idea that it is perfectly acceptable to assassinate a royal family and take their throne for yourself, and plunge Europe into 20 years of ceaseless war, provided the people were more free under your system. This is not a sensible precedent. Just ask Europe, circa 1939-45. Or during the entire Cold War. Or ask Communist China. Or Cromwellian England. And so on.

Bull. Using the armies as an example, the French army was more egalitarian than the British or other European armies. Alessandro Barbero, in his book, the Battle a New History of Waterloo, marvels at how egalitarian the and meritocractic the Napoleonic French army was which upheld ideals of the French Revolution. According to him, about 3/4 of the officers that served Napoleon had come up through the ranks. Not so for the British in that only 5-10% of the officers had come up through the ranks; the rest were from the aristocractic class. The other European armies had better meritocractic rates than the British.

So yes, Napoleonic France practiced less nepotism than the other European nations including Britiain.

All of these are good points. Unfortunately, they are totally unrelated to the argument. As said above, allowing greater social mobility does not indicate that a man (Napoleon) is not despotic. It just means that they are a socially liberal despot. So were Hitler and Stalin.

His "despotic" system was more enlightened than others. The average French citizen had a better education and, as I demonstrated with the army example, could aspire to go up the ladder. This is not true for the other European nations, including Britain. If Napoleon's system was despotic, the others at the time were MORE despotic.

No, they weren't. Or, not England. Giving your citizens better education is a worthy goal, but it doesn't make your country undespotic. Despotism is the practice of one person or a small group of people hoarding power for themselves and refusing others any say in the governance of the country. Napoleon, after dissolving his Senate, kept power for himself and had no intention of introducing democracy. That makes him a despot of the highest order, no matter how virtuous he was. Britain may have essentially reserved Parliamentary seats for the landed classes, but there were thousands, even tens of thousands of them. You can't have a despotism with that many stakeholders, because they can't be expected to come to a common consensus, and there is no part of British law for banning people from Parliament because they disagree with the ruling government at the time. Sure, they didn't allow EVERYONE to vote, but then no country in the world does that. If that made Britain despotic, then until a newborn baby has the right to vote, and there is no citizen alive without the right to elect a representative no matter how ineligible, the world will be ruled by despots. I think that would be a hard argument to sustain.

So? Your pont? The French had to loot in order to survive. You have ignored this part of my argument and going on tangents.

The British army didn't loot France, it bought supplies, at massive personal cost. There is always another way. Looting rather than downsizing may be strategically advisable, but it is also ruthless, and it is something no other country did in their own land.

Also, you mention that stevep has ignored part of your argument. You ignored my entire argument. How convenient.

Wrong. As I have said, the Russians had armies forming up and was going to attack France if Napoleon did not decide to attack first, Russia would have done. Alexander said this about Napoleon: "there was no space in Europe for both of us".

But your point was that France wasn't a warring state. If it was the opposite, then it would - reluctantly, and militarily stupidly - have simply sat back and let Russia attack. But it didn't. And I listed a whole ton of other places where France was happy to attack defenseless powers before the invasion of Russia 1812. Incidentally, "they needed to conquer those states to be strong enough to resist the coalitions" is not a valid argument for proving that France was trying to be peaceful during the Napoleonic Wars.

 

[Beedok]

Quite the heated debate about OTL Europe on a thread mostly about an ATL North America.

 

[Glen]

Exactly. But the bite is not so big in comparison to what they hold already. They bought northern California already, after all. Hmm, would it feel more plausible if it were just southern California?

This one. And relatively speaking, the Hispanic population in the northeast was not so big. They already got Cuba and Hispaniola, after all (of course, working from the PoV that Texas and BSA unite sooner rather than later).

Your point about the relative sizes and tolerance for annexing Latins by the British is taken. Of course, the Texans are still independent and they are a melange of groups and interests. However, I would say, on average, the willingness of this group of Texans to accept more Mexicans in the Republic is probably greater than OTL.

But it would have enforced the geopolitical divide between the West Coast to the USA, and the Caribbean Gulf to Texas/BSA. And as you say, they would still have the Gulf of California. Anyway, as I said, we may reduce the USA share and leave Baja to Texas.

Good point, good point. On the Caribbean you're spot on. However, when it comes to the West Coast, it's not equivalent. The Americans have too many other players lining the West Coast of North America (the Russians, the Mexicans, and now the Texans) to think of it as 'our coast'. The area around OTL Pacific Northwest, absolutely, but other than that not so much. Also, given the British have other areas to base out of the Pacific, 'cutting them off' from that ocean isn't really important to the US mindset, either.

That's a good point. But my assumption about US attitude was more about opportunistic entitlement, i.e. "If it looks like Mexico is going to lose southern California, it should got to us, not BSA or its Texan proxy".

Maybe, if it is an easy pick up. Northern California/New Mexico was. We'll see if any other options come up.

 

[Glen]

The problem with taking ever bigger bites is that sooner or later you bite off more than you can choose, especially when your desire exceeds your strength as it could do there.

The problem with that is that it breaks the agreement that the US has just signed. Which since it means effectively seizing lands it agrees belongs to Texas that country will be very upset. As with the BSA that sees a possible route of expansion cut off. Can guess how President Brown will respond to that. [What was that about you seeing Texas joining the BSA pretty quickly]. Quickly followed by the old call "Dad, that bullies stolen my toy!"

Steve

Agree with Steve on both of the above points, except to note it is still an open question whether the British would be willing to adopt this waif if it means taking on the US regionally. All depends what Britain perceives as in Britain's best interests.

 

[Glen]

Your argument is compelling, even if seeing lovely California in the filthy hands of the slaveocracy always makes Eurofed a sad panda. At least, bickering between Texas and USA that eventually defuses in the favor of the former about the area could drive the union of Texas and BSA, which is a good thing of its own (the less the Balkanization, the better).

Well, glad to see compelling logic can win you over (however heartbrokenly) from your own sense of ATL Manifest Destiny.

 

[Glen]

Eurofed, sorry but i have to said this: You Americanphile start to Sick me(in general your concept of AH start to be a little cliched for me, someone must make a Wikin page for you and the eurofedism)

The POD of this TL is since the ARW, and the USA and extremly different than was suppose to be originally(taking away all the Deep South Culture, your change a big point in American Expansionism and Jingonist agenda since their birth but some butterflies can still want them have the warm pacific port and later the Fillbuster against Hawaii) and the British have their own expansionist agenda but their are more... refinated(in fact with their Dominon, they absolutily will advice them to NOT pushed away against another independant states besides those who the Motherland have a war or reason of hate) but if the mexican made the idiot mistake(they made it in OTL, the butterflies maybe are not too strong yet or the mexican are idiots by nature, sorry Dexter my mexican friend, but History them to support that thesis), in the Long Term... California will be a Integral of british souther america(with a partition/buy with the USA) or become a Dominon of their own...

The butterflies have a lot of power, is the abillities of choose was is the correct effect than separate a TL to be the history than never was or a big shit ASB

Att
Nivek von Beldo

If I understand Nivek, then yes, it would be foolish to press other powers in the region when it is unnecessary. Of course, as also noted, foolish is sometimes what people are (if only in retrospect), and that is not a trait necessarily particular to one nation....

 

[Glen]

Nivek

Other than the divided Italy I suspect Eurofed might be quite happy with that TL as he has a preference for mega-states spanning continents. We only have one thing in common, in that we both believe Britain was very important, possibly vital in preventing Europe suffering that fate. I think its the main reason why he hates Britain so and is glad to see us conquered or degraded. Conversely its another reason why I love my country.

There may be a degree of racism in his world view. Or it could be that in his desire for such states he has a distinct dislike for democracy and people governing themselves. He prefers a US that conquers all of N America and often a lot of the south. Which is what I suspect is getting under your skin. However that could be because he thinks that's the only way such continental states could be established and for him that end seem more important than the means.

Steve

Well, let's be charitable if trying to ascribe motives to others. I too have a penchant for the development of large nations, both because they are fun and because they somewhat simplify already complicated geopolitics in timelines that already are getting more complicated to engender as one moves away from OTL. I also have a fondness at times for a good Ameriwank, Canadawank, or Britwank, in part because they are Anglophone (sorry, Quebec) countries so easier for me to develop as an Anglophone myself. On the other hand, I have engaged in various forms of Spanishwank, Khazarwank, Germanwank, to name just a few. And sometimes I'm willing to go with medium sized nations (though I have a craving for contiguous borders even there). So let us assume that Eurofed perhaps likes such simplicity, familiarity, and symmetry rather than ascribing darker motives.

BTW, good point about Britain trying to disrupt any other power forming a hegemony, especially in Europe. Of course, whether they would have been able to even absent Britain's intervention is an open question....

 

[Glen]

Well, Thanks for support me( I think you have too several argument too with EF), Well, EF support of the Orwelian Geopolitics: Those who belived in the Triuviratum Superpower in Cold War Balance(a very simple scenario to not make so hard the homework in advance geopolitics and Alternate history too,), much like a lot here(i think that is possible but again, the butterflies...)

Well, it need not be Orwellian to be a mega block cold-war scenario.

And yes, I lived in the Infamous, United States ´Backyard´(and in a Country who suffer a Fillbuster by the Northamericans... guess which??? and is not mexico,) and indirectly suffer a lot for their geopolitics against us

Ah, you forget to factor in American self-involvement. It's not so much geopolitics against Latin America, but rather thoughtlessness more often than not (early 20th century excepted....there was some rather nastier politics then.

(i support the Idea of Lula's Latin America union without mexico, because IMHO, Mexico is more than a Puppet of the American),

Well, a South American Economic Union makes some sense. And Mexico is more closely related to America economically so unless one integrates a hemisphere-wide economic unit, that makes a sort of sense without being insulting about it. If Mexico is an American puppet, then America is a drunken amnestic puppeteer because from the US perspective Mexico's really not following what US interests would like to see, at least IMO. I, of course, could be wrong.

and the 'Utopist' americanphile dreams of EF make me sick

Well, I'm certain some of your fonder fantasies would make others ill, since one person's utopia may be another's apocalypse. In the real world, the conscientious person (or country) tries to strike the balance between self interest and being a good neighbor.

(but i second the Euro Venerin Directed by Deutchland and with Bundes Magyar(with Ilyria, sorry EF, but italy don't have the power to make any claim besides risk war because the savoy always was French little puppet by a lot of time) and Italy and Ottomans like their liders) well, i gonna wait is answer, thanks stevep for the support

Well, that sounds like an interesting vision, and one that I'm certain would be equally alarming to some as EF's ideas for AH are to you.

But we digress. Soon, back to this timeline's conceits and fantasies, and whether they be one's utopia, dystopia, or just undiscovered country, may it at least prove interesting to you, the reader....

 

[Glen]

The accusation holds true, although I'm far from the only AH.com regular driven to the hobby by an overwhelming geopolitical interest (in my case, successful continental imperialism; at least my focus is kinda broad, as I can root for the success of many different wanks, from America to China, although I have favorites; and about that, sorry, but I deeply loathe the Deep South and pretty much all of what it sttod for and wrought, from slavery to the religious right, with the shining exception of rock & roll).
{cut and paste}
Ahh, such naivety. Nope, nowhere that close. I'm not going to tell my precise residence for privacy reasons. I admit a soft spot and sentimental bias for my own country, and successful Irredentism is an obvious means of making it successful, but my own fan wanks are otherwise driven by more... complex reasons (in short: familiarity with history, plausible chance of becoming a successful and non-oppressive empire, sympathy with culture and political system, supreme goal of getting as close as possible to utopian world unification) than base and unreasoning nationalism. Otherwise, looking at my preferred wanks, one ought to decide that I'm a hybrid Grossdeutchsland German & Irredenta Italian crossbred with Manifest Destiny American and Napoleonic/Carolingian French with a fetish for Imperial Roman, a soft spot for Imperial Chinese, and a sprinkle of Valkyrie Zionist and Liberal Russian. I feel quite the mutt.

So pretty much what I already suggested, although the Valkyrie Zionist bit made me smile....one of these days you must tell me more.

All true, but it was my opnion that the TL's historical drives were quite compatible with maintaining the OTL geopolitical vectors of US expansion in the Pacific, and Dixie/BSA one in the Caribbean.

Hmm, you speaking of southern California of course, because I see no compelling reason that recent US annexation of northern California ought to be reversed.

You are correct about the reference I think and the subset of possible trajectories, though don't assume too much.